EagleWatcher's blog
Posted at 1:24pm on Apr. 6, 2006 Wiggle and spin: Bush authorized leak!
By EagleWatcher
Via Drudge:
Bush Authorized Leak to TIMES, Libby Told Grand Jury...
If you follow the link and read the last line of the article.
"Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President
Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq,
according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating
the Valerie Plame leak that Cheney told him to pass on the information and
that it was Bush who authorized the leak, the court papers say. According
to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation
between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney
authorized Libby to disclose Plame's CIA identity. "
This is old news in more ways that one. First the same story was pitched two
months ago with almost the same headline. Second, it is designed to throw more
mud on the Bush administration by misleading people who don't bother to read
the article into assuming that Bush approved the leak of Valerie Plame. How
can anyone doubt the media bias and the naked hatred the MSM has for the Bush
Administration? This is irresponsible.
I think Republicans and good conservatives need to understand that the liberal
media is not going to give up. We have to be just as determined to get the truth
out when they do stuff like this.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:27pm on Apr. 5, 2006 The Curious Controversy of "United 93"
By EagleWatcher
United 93 is billed as an accurate depiction of the events aboard
the United Airlines flight that crashed in the fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9-11. The film is directed by Paul Greengrass who directed The Bourne Supremacy
and Bloody Sunday. Universal has promised to donate 10% of the opening
weekend's receipts to the Flight 93 National Memorial Fund.
From the movie site:
"FLIGHT 93 intends to dignify the memory of those on that flight, the
men and woman whose sacrifice remains one of the most heroic legacies of the
incomprehensible tragedies that unfolded on that autumn morning."
The movie unfolds in real time; one minute of screen time equals one minute
of actual time on 9-11. It stars mostly un-known actors to avoid overshadowing
the fact that these were ordinary people.
Comments on the movie run the gamut of opinions; from those strongly against
to those strongly in favor. From the forums on the United
93 official web site:
This is the most disgusting and shameless act of capitalizing on a horrible
event to make money! And have no doubt..it's about making money! Forget the
so called......"View of the shape of our world today"!!! Go watch
Fahrenheit 9/11 for that! And this from the director of the Bourne supremacy?
I suppose being good at something doesn't mean u have any integrity.....so
I shouldn't be surprised.
A comment from one of those in favor:
How can you put down this film without ever seeing it? I admit I'm not impressed
by Hollywood's efforts in the last several years. They take us for a bunch
of sheep that will fall all over ourselves to see their mediocre projects.However, I am very interested in the 9/11 story and look forward to seeing
this. I don't see how a dignified chronicle of that infamous day and flight
is offensive.
Talk radio has started to discuss the implications of the movie saying it is
important that the country be reminded that we are fighting a real enemy. They
are presaging the potential controversy this movie will stir. How will a painfully
accurate move be received by a country that is still healing from the experience
of 9-11? People reacted with shouts of "too soon" at Grauman's Chinese
Theatre. Those who have seen rough cuts of the film say it is well produced
and one of the most powerful movies they have ever seen. At first I was stunned
that the movie was coming out so soon, but after listing to Debra Berlingame
I realized that this was not a cheap Hollywood money grab. Debra Burlingame,
whose brother was a pilot on the flight, has said in interviews on FOX and Rush
Limbaugh's show that the movie is a must see. She assures us that the producers
of the movie have obtained permission from everyone of the families who lost
loved ones on United 93 and treats the subject with respect.
Regardless of your feelings this will likely turn into a shameless, full blown,
political controversy. You can imagine how the battle lines will be drawn. The
MSM is already giving it the "Passion of the Christ" treatment, raising
questions of exploitation. I wonder if they will raise the same objections when
Oliver Stone releases his 9-11 movie in August. As for me, I plan to see it.
Too many people, including conservatives, have forgotten the events of 9-11
and how United 93 was the first battle in the war on a brutal enemy bent on
the destruction of the US.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:19am on Apr. 2, 2006 Lifeboat America
By EagleWatcher
A parable of two lifeboats
Two lifeboats took to sea as an ocean liner tragically sinks beneath the waves.
One life boat is full of conservatives the other full of liberals. In the water
are dozens of people screaming for help. The conservatives pull in an elderly
man, a pregnant woman and some young children; the weakest and most likely to
drown. But soon the boat begins to get dangerously full. They refuse to take
on any more for fear their boat will be swamped. The people in the water beg
and plead, but the conservatives are resolute.
The liberals witnessing this shout out to the conservatives, "How can
you be so heartless? Where is your compassion? Don't you care about the suffering
of these people?" With this the liberals begin pulling people into their
boat from all sides. People in the water swim frantically to the liberals' boat
and begging pulling themselves in. In the frenzy and panic, the liberals' lifeboat
capsizes and sinks drowning all on board.
The lesson is simple. With conservatives in charge, some people will drown.
With liberals in charge, everybody will drown. The bad news is that our lifeboat
is getting full and conservatives are not in charge.
A plea for leadership
Americans are faced with a crisis of compassion. They want to help those less
fortunate, but they don't want to sink their own lifeboat in the process. Liberal
Democrats and nominal conservatives offer no solutions to the illegal
immigration problem; a problem that threatens our country on so many levels.
Conservatives need to show some courage and sensibility on this issue before
our lifeboat sinks.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:02pm on Jan. 28, 2006 Google technology in service to censorship
By EagleWatcher
The executives at Google have abandon their liberal ideals and put profit above
human rights and free speech. The ringing of the cash register has drown out
the cries of an oppressed people. They have agreed to use their powerful technology
to help the Communist government of China keep the Chinese people from learning
about the failure of Communism around the world and the liberating dignity of
self-determination. Not only can they filter out words like freedom, Democracy
and human rights, their filtering technology allows them to filter out images
as well. To demonstrate this, our friends at Little
Green Footballs put together a simple demonstration.
Search Google
USA for the word "Tiananmen"
Search Google China
for the word "Tiananmen"
Some of my Chinese friends participated in the Tiananmen Square protests. They
gathered in small groups with other students to fill out their last will and
testaments, fully realizing they may not survive an encounter with the Communist
government of China. Today they are proud US citizens.
What Google has done is an affront to the good people of China. People who
have suffered torture, starvation and death at the hands of a totalitarian government
that killed 70 million of its own people under Chairman Mao. What Google has
done is far worse than the child labor violations liberals are so quick to point
to as evidence of the evils of capitalism. Google's hypocrisy is simply staggering.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:52pm on Jan. 15, 2006 Adventures in Conservative Podcasting
By EagleWatcher
Steve Jobs recently announced that Apple has sold over 42 million iPods with
14 million being sold this Christmas. In addition to music, the success of the
iPod is driven by the podcasting of all kinds of content like books on MP3,
news, sports shows and talk radio programs. For conservatives this is another
way to smash the MSM's information monopoly and go directly to the people with
their message. Blogs4Bush, RedState, Instapundit and the RNC have begun dabbling
in podcasts with more to come.
Here's a short list for the inquisitive, well informed conservative. Not all
links are exclusively conservative, but they do offer informative and provocative
content.
Digital Debates - National Constitution
Center
They don't update as often as I would like, but when they do it's fascinating
stuff. Checkout their debate on Intelligent Design. Free download.
Beyond the News Weekend Journal
This is a great weekly wrap up of highlights culled from the national conservative
talk shows like Hugh Hewitt and Bill Bennett. If you're too busy to listen to
talk radio this is the next best thing. Free download.
The Senate Republican Conference
Podcasts include Republican Senate news conferences and floor statements as
well as other events. This week the podcasts included Sen. Cornyn's Q/A on final
day of confirmation hearings for Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. This
is a must choice for the political junky. Free download.
C-SPAN
You can subscribe for free using iTunes and get audio of their Q&A
interviews, After Words interviews and a Podcast of the Week.
Voice of America
VOA podcasts a number of programs including panel discussions, debates and science
and technology news. They cover news the MSM ignores giving you an insight into
world politics you won't get from CNN. Free download.
For those willing to pay a yearly subscription fee you have a lot of excellent
conservative podcasts to choose from:
Rush Limbaugh
For those who may not know, Rush offers his show as a podcast. The show downloads
as 3 MP3's of about 40 minutes each; all without a single commercial. The show
is rich with sound bites, conservative history and political satire. Yearly
subscription required.
Laura Ingraham
The show downloads from iTunes as a single file about 2 hours long without commercials.
Laura's show is rich with interviews with people like Don Rumsfeld, Gary Sinise
and a variety of others. The show is a great mix of politics, culture and satire.
Laura's show is one of the top 5 talk shows in the country. Yearly subscription
required.
Podcasting has been a successful outlet for conservative talk radio. Bill Bennett,
Michael Medved, Denis Prager, Albert Mohler and Sean Hanity offer podasting
subscriptions with Hugh Hewitt and others coming in the near future.
The value proposition is that you can listen to podcasts while commuting, working
out at the gym or working around the house. Instead of listening to your favorite
Barry Manilow tune for the 500th time, you can listen to Steve Forbes explain
his flat tax plan, former Attorney General of the US under Bush 41 William Barr
explain why Gitmo should not be shut down or listen to Randall Wenger and Jeremy
Gunn, Director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion debate the Dover,
PA intelligent design case.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:59pm on Jan. 8, 2006 Slouching Toward a Brave New World
By EagleWatcher
Ray Kurzweil was ebullient
as he spoke about his latest
book on C-SPAN and described a day when nanotechnology would create tiny
robots the size of blood cells that would course through our veins and help
cure diseases like Diabetes. These cell-bots would work by sensing our sugar
levels and releasing insulin automatically. Another type of cell-bot would act
as anti-bodies. We would be able to download virus patterns from the Internet
and transfer them to these cells as new disease were discovered. Eat your heart
out, Norton AntiVirus.
His vision is optimistic. Kurzweil's predictions draw validity from what he
calls "The Law of Accelerating Returns." Simply put, it states that
the growth in technological capability is exponential. In 100 years we will
not be just 100 years more capable, but thousands of years more capable.
"The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological
intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence
that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."
Mr. Kurzweil doesn't drive around in a Delorean with Michael J. Fox. He is
a respected scientist who developed technologies like optical character recognition,
musical synthesizers and text to speech readers.
Developments in the biotech industry are moving toward a horizon not all that
different from Kurzweil's. As I write this, mice exist who have had small amounts
of human DNA spliced into their own. This is the first step toward creating
human-animal hybrids or "chimeras." This could produce creatures that
will be able to grow humanly compatible organs to be used in transplants. In
the future it could lead to creatures that are as strong as elephants with enough
human intelligence to do difficult or dangerous work, like coal mining or fighting
wars, so humans don't have to.
So what's so bad about living until your 900 years old? What parent would balk
at the idea of having children that were genetically "modified" to
have above average intelligence and the physique of an Olympic athlete? Who
would complain if society were able to clone up a batch of 1,000 Einsteins?
I could fill a dozen diaries with the ethical questions that will be raised
by these new technologies.
The horses of the technology chariot are strong and are pulling us to a point
where we will have to reconsider the very definition of what it means to be
a human being. In spite of the ethical controversy, I fear that scientists like
Kurzweil are presenting a package that is too appealing to pass up.
While the scientists and ethicists fight it out on Mount Olympus, we mortals
will be making decisions at the grass roots level that will make their debate
seem moot. Most of you reading this would never condone cloning or embryonic
stem cell therapies, but consider the following scenario. Your daughter is suffering
from cancer and the prognosis is that she will certainly die of her illness.
None of the conventional cures have worked. One day the doctor calls and says
there's a radical new therapy that could save your daughter's life. The catch:
it's based on embryonic stem cells or one of the other ethically questionable
technologies. How many of us could say no to the doctor for ethical reasons
and watch our daughter die?
Pandora's box will not be opened with a golden key by one of our political
leaders; it will be smashed open by millions of people desperate to ease the
pain and suffering of their loved ones. Yes, I am pessimistic. I fear that we
will not be able to rouse enough people to fight the ethical and legal battles
ahead and demand that progress is not made at the expense of ethics. These battles
will make the abortion debate look like a trivial dispute. The Brave New World
will not just appear suddenly one day. It will arrive one brick at a time.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:54pm on Jan. 6, 2006 Your land is my land: takings case in Massachusetts
By EagleWatcher
This
is another reason why the Alito nomination is so important. I fear we will see
a lot more of these before any real challenge is mounted. The land in questions
is in a prime location next to major highways with a lovely view of the water.
The bottom line is that the city took the land from a private interest and gave
it to another private interest.
Kenneth Fiola Jr., executive vice president of the Fall River Office of Economic
Development, said United Textile owner Samuel Shapiro has received a $1.6
million check for his property.The announcement comes three weeks after the authority voted unanimously
to take the land by eminent domain."This doesn’t mean we are kicking Mr. Shapiro off the land. His
business is still operating on the site for now," Fiola said. "This
just means we now officially own the property."
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:21am on Jan. 4, 2006 The MSM's Cruel Mistake
By EagleWatcher
I turned on FOX News late last night to hear Geraldo Rivera celebrating hysterically.
He was wandering through a crowd of people asking them what they had heard and
they were saying that "they're alive!" He compared it to the miracle
in Pennsylvania. Anderson Copper at CNN was reporting the same thing with slightly
less emotion.
This morning I turned on FOX and read the caption under the screen. It said
that 12 miners were found dead and only one was alive. The earlier jubilation
was apparently sparked by a forman at the mine who had overheard a speaker phone
conversation and assumed that all 12 miners were found alive.
This is another tragic example of rumor being reported as fact. It is reminiscent
of the reporting from New Orleans and the stories that hundreds of people had
died at the Super Dome including the rape and murder of a seven-year-old. It
is cruel and irresponsible. The MSM's credibility continues to plummet.
Our prayers and sympathies are with the families in West Virginia.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:37am on Dec. 26, 2005 Winners and Losers of 2005
By EagleWatcher
It was a pretty good year to own a cable news network. You certainly didn't
lack for stories to cover. As the dust settled some emerged in a better
position than they were 12 months ago while others may wish 2005 never happened.
Those who came out on the losing end:
- National Security
If you read the 911 Report you might likely conclude that the one thing that
would have prevented September 11 is the Patriot Act. In spite of 30 new civil
liberties protections added to the revised version, the Democrats proudly
defeated it and put us on a path back to a September 10th world. - Cindy Sheehan
Some people may despise her, but I see her as tragic figure. After being seduced
and manipulated by the liberal media and the American Left she has been cast
off to put her life and her sanity back together. She has been abandoned to
bounce around like a loose ping-ping ball in the clockworks of world politics. - The MSM
The New York Times, L. A. Times as well as others reported substantial drops
in circulation and profits. Their credibility continues to sink even after
a brief bump from their Katrina coverage. - Social Security Reform
Even the Spruce Goose got further off the ground than this one. In spite of
the fact that we face more than 50 Trillion in benefit liability for Medicare
and Social Security in the next 75 years, President Bush failed to convince
anybody that the house is on fire. - New Orleans
First you had 60% unemployment, a murder rate 7 times the national average
and one of the most corrupt police departments in the country and then...the
levees broke. The colossal bungling of Ray Nagin on up to FEMA made the worst
natural disaster in US history even more devistating. Is there any wonder
that 50% of people who used to live there don't want to go back?
The Winners:
- The Blogosphere
The conservative blogosphere muscled up quite a bit this year. I think it
was instrumental in getting the Miers nomination withdrawn and in motivating
the President's current set of speeches defending the war and promoting the
economy. - The US Economy
In spite of the devastation of Katrina and a spike in oil prices, the US economy
survived and even grew at almost 4%. - John McCain
Love him or hate him, he succeeded in creating a fourth branch of government
in The Gang of Fourteen. He then went on to appoint himself maverick-in-chief
with veto power over the President. - The Liberal Left
In spite of a re-energized Conservative base, the liberal Left scored some
important victories this year. They managed to codify their powerful influence
on our society by defeating parental notification in California. They advanced
the secularization of America by getting Intelligent Design banned in Pennsylvania.
They succeeded in using the courts to make a "quality of life" judgment
in the Terri Schiavo case. And they managed to give the state more control
over our lives in the Kelo decision. - The Alaskan Caribou
The caribou handily won the right to an unspoiled view of the snow and rocks
in ANWR. Without making a single phone call they managed to trump the energy
needs of 280 million human beings and the needs of our military fighting in
Iraq. Perhaps Republicans would find it easier to win elections if they ran
with antlers on their heads.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:42am on Dec. 21, 2005 Outlawing the Scientific Method
By EagleWatcher
I have always loved science. It led me to take apart all our appliances when
I was a kid to see how they worked. I had very understanding parents. It later
led me to go to college and study engineering and now to work as a computer
programmer.
One definition of the scientific method reads:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving
the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through
observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
This week a judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania amended this definition
to forbid the examination of evidence that would suggest an intelligent designer.
Think about this for a minute. A judge is prohibiting the presentation of scientific
evidence because it might support a particular religious view.
What would Federal Judge John Jones have said to Belgian Catholic priest Georges
Lemaître? Mr. Lemaître was the guy who first proposed the Big Bang
theory. Would he have outlawed it because it defies the conventional belief
that the universe always existed and suggests a "beginning" to the
universe and thus an ultimate beginner?
The Big Bang theory is not based on the Bible, it is based on scientific evidence.
- The Red Shift
Most people know about the Doppler affect. As a sound source comes toward
you the pitch shifts higher. As it moves away the pitch seem to lower. This
is true of light waves as well. By looking at light sources in the cosmos
they seem to be shifting to the lower frequency end of the light spectrum
indicating that they are moving away from us. This suggests that
the universe is expanding as if some force, like a cataclysmic explosion,
has sent all stars and galaxies out in all directions. - The Hydrogen to Helium ratio
According to Georges Lemaître's theory, hydrogen and helium would exist
in specific ratios in the universe if there had been a Big Bang. Scientific
study has shown that the hydrogen/helium ratio is precisely as Georges Lemaître
predicted it would be. - The Echo of the Big Bang
Lemaître theorized that the Big Bang was so powerful we should be able
to hear "echoes" of it even today. Scientists have found that there
are "echoes" in the form of microwave radiation. No matter where
they pointed their receivers they picked up this residual microwave energy.
You can hear it for yourself when you tune your radio manually looking for
your favorite station. About three percent of the static you hear between
stations is actually caused by the echo of the Big Bang.
I can't begin to tell you how controversial this theory was when it was first
proposed. It was apposed not because it was bad science, but because it violated
the religious views of an agnostic scientific community. Could some people interpret
the judge's ruling to prohibit the teaching of the Big Bang theory as well?
I fear that the judge in this case has crossed a line that will prevent young
minds from considering scientific evidences based on a fear that it may make
them believe in something spiritual. Let all the evidence be examined and let
the people decide. Let the investigation go were the evidence takes it.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (92) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:47am on Dec. 18, 2005 Who says we're a Christian nation?
By EagleWatcher
To listen to the ACLU and the American Left you would think that Christianity
was a radical and oppressive new concept being forced down the throats of US
citizens. The fact is that the United States, its laws and customs are deeply
rooted in Christianity.
As part of the Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States. ruling
the US Supreme Court considered the question of whether or not the US was a
Christian nation. They studied the influence of Christianity going all the way
back to Christopher Columbus. After carefully examining the evidence for nearly
10 years they found in 1892:
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody
the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should
be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our
institutions are emphatically Christian ... this is a religious people. This
is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present
hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ... we find everywhere
a clear definition of the same truth ... this is a Christian nation."
The ruling was later upheld in 1931 by Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland
who reviewed Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States and reaffirmed
that we are a "Christian people." A more liberal Supreme Court in
1952 had no problem recognizing the spiritual nature of America. Supreme Court
Justice William O. Douglas declared that “we are a religious people and
our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”
Merry Christmas, America!
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:32pm on Dec. 11, 2005 But we ARE the world police
By EagleWatcher
Shortly after the 1991 Gulf War, US officials paid a visit on the Saudi Royal
Family. They presented them with a carefully calculated bill for services rendered
in removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. According to a recent PBS Frontline
report, the tab came to about 60 billion dollars and it took the Saudis almost
a decade to pay it off. The Saudis are not unique. Countries large and small
out-source some or all of their national security to the US and we often receive
financial compensation or other considerations in return.
Developing countries that can't afford to stand up a regular army, find it
cost effective to build deep water ports and let the US Navy use them for refueling
and repair. Other countries may build an air field or two large enough to accommodate
US C130s, AWAKS or US jet fighters in forward positions. The cynical left may
see this as just another example of US hegemony, but the truth is we are the
world police because people want us to be the world police. And people want
us to be the world police because we are very good at it. Countries know that
the conspicuous presence of the US military is often enough to deter attack
from hostile nations.
Short sited liberals fail to see the bigger picture. The US military spends
most of its time and resources preventing conflict and bloodshed. More than
50 years after the Korean war, US soldiers still patrol the southern border
of the DMZ discouraging Kim Jong-il from spreading his gulag to the entire Korean
peninsula. We are a deterrent because everyone knows that if you take up arms
against America's Armed Forces you are going to have a very bad day. As Thomas
Barnett, author of the Pentagon's New Map, points out we could protect
the US and her territories with a budget of just over 100 billion. Our military
budget is typically over 400 billion because we need to be able to project our
military might to all parts of the world. As controversial as it may be, this
is the role America plays in the world.
Liberal Democrats have embraced defeat in Iraq. They feel safe in saying that
we have lost the war, our military is broken and our troops are terrorizing
Iraqis in the middle of the night. They think they can avoid the tough fights
and still be a national party. If they manage to regain a majority and the White
House in 08, their misguided world view will be tested severely.
One or more of the following scenarios is likely to play out before the end
of the decade. Will the Democrats have the resolve to fulfil America's responsibilities?
- The China problem
Tea leaf readers in the defense space like Bill Gertz have noted
the military build up in China. Some of them are saying that China could invade
Taiwan within the next few years. Technically speaking we have a treaty to
defend Taiwan if this happens. Do the Democrats
have the resolve to use military force against China? Will they honor our treaties?
- The al-Qaeda cycle
Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush suffered an al-Qaeda attack in the first
year of their administrations. If al-Qaeda manages another attack in the first
year of President Hillary's regime, will she be able to muster support from
the Democrats for a decisive response?
- Iran and Israel
Iran is building nuclear weapons. Israel may decide to take out their facilities
with a multi-pronged attack. Will the Democrats stand by Israel if Iran and
her allies retaliate? Israel has successfully revamped and tested its ArrowMissile Defense System. They may decide it's too difficult to take out Iran's
underground weapons labs and take the chance that they can shoot down the
Kh55 cruise missiles Iran may have already purchased from the Ukraine. Will
a Democratic White House be ready to enforce international treaties and disarm
Iran?
The Democrats' isolationist tendencies are a losing strategy for their party,
America and the world. They think they can run from world conflict, but it will
dog their steps.
America is the world's policeman. This allows America to protect her
interests while providing an umbrella of security for vulnerable countries.
It is childishly naive to pretend this complex, symbiotic relationship does
not exist. Without us, Iran, Korea and others would spread their oppressive
forms of government unchecked. Any politician who believes that Saddam would
sit twiddling his thumbs while Iraq's mortal enemy Iran developed nuclear weapons
is unfit to decide national security policy. The remarks of Murtha, Dean, Pelosi
and others demonstrate that the Democratic party has become little more than
a political action committee focused on domestic issues and not a party that
has the vision or resolve to lead the free world.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:40pm on Nov. 20, 2005 Cut and run to retreat another day
By EagleWatcher
On April 29, Armed Forces Radio played "White Christmas." As Nat
King Cole crooned on the 102 degree day the Americans still in South Vietnam
knew this was the secret signal to start packing and get out. It meant that
there was no hope left and the end was near.
This was just the last phase of a retreat that began several years earlier.
Aide to South Vietnam was cut from 2.1 billion in 1973 down to 700 million in
in 1975. Among those leading the retreat was Teddy Kennedy who fought to deny
several hundred million in aid to the South in a 43 to 38 vote from the Democratic
controlled Senate. Two weeks before North Vietnam began the invasion of the
South, Gerald Ford begged Congress for an aide package that would have sent
722 million dollars in additional aide to the South. The Congress said no.
Our last images of South Vietnam are the images of Americans and their South
Vietnamese allies clinging to the landing gear of US helicopters lifting off
from the roof of the US Embassy. These were soon followed by images of the 700,000
boat people who fled for their lives rather than be executed by the NVA or end
up in the "re-education" camps.
I say this because it needs to be said over and over lest we forget. We did
not lose the war in Vietnam in the jungles of Southeast Asia, we lost it in
the halls of Congress. Our military fought valiantly under brutal conditions
along side the South Vietnamese Army who fought and died to the tune of 254,000
dead. Vietnam was not a military defeat. It was a defeat of the will.
Thirty years later the Democrats are leading the retreat once again. Some of
the actors have changed, but the script is the same. Regardless of the media's
eloquent spin of Murtha's plan, it will be perceived by our enemies as another
humiliating defeat for the US. Al Jazeera has headlined Murtha on its web site
sending out a trumpet call of victory to the jihadists who have fought so hard
to get America out of Iraq. They are celebrating today.
To Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry and the rest of those who would show their backsides
to the enemy I say this: if we cut and run now, we will be running for the rest
of our lives.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:22pm on Oct. 30, 2005 Kudos for the New Media
By EagleWatcher
This week hurricane Harriet blew out of town just as hurricane Scooter became
a category 5. In the midst of the information storm the New Media continues
to keep us informed. Here are some notable examples that you may have missed
amid the high drama of recent days.
The Best Adult Supervision of the UN Award
Laura Ingraham had a great interview with our favorite UN watchdog, Senator
Norm Coleman (R-MN). He took a break from his Oil-for-Food investigation to
warn listeners that the UN is trying to gain control over the Internet. Coleman
zeros in on the key points:
"There are a number of scenarios, but they all lead down the same path.
You have a path that says OK now you're going to get China and Iran involved
in operating the internet. What does that mean in terms of freedom of access?
You got the United Nations involved. What does that mean in terms of of perhaps
taxing the internet to fund UN efforts?"[...]
"They want to terminate the historic US roll in internet governance
They want to relegate both the private enterprise and non-governmental organizations
to the sideline. Place a UN dominated group in charge of the Internet's operation."[...]
[The Guardian] talked about this in saying that faced with international
consensus, there's little the U.S. government can do but acquiesce. And..and..my
response is that acquiescence would be appeasement. We can't allow Tunis [the
site of the next UN conference on this] to become a digital Munich.
He also points out that China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba are among the countries
supporting this. I don't think of free speech when I think of any of those countries.
Kudos to Laura and Norm Coleman for getting this on the radar.
The Harpooning Hypocrisy Award
Rush Limbaugh caught a sound bite of Wolf Blitzer in an interview with Dick
Durbin (D-Il). Durbin challenged Kay Bailey Hutchison's notion that no indictments
should be filed for anything other than the original charge in the CIA Leak
Case. Durbin disagreed and went into a self-righteous soliloquy accusing the
White House of trying to cover up the weak information that led to the Iraq
war. Wolf then lifted his harpoon and skewered Durbin with his own words from
a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article dated February 2, 1999 in which he complained
of Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton.
"Durbin lamented what he called 'criminalized politics' at election
time. 'It isn't a question of whether I can defeat the candidate of the other
party. The question is can I get him indicted? Or can I get him removed from
office? Or can I get him investigated?'"
Durbin's denied having made those remarks and simply reiterated some of his
previous talking points. Apparently for the Dems and Durbin it's only "criminalized
politics" when Republicans indict Democrats. I applaud Rush and give an
honorary mention to Wolf for cutting through the political double speak.
The Best English Translation of the Libby Indictment Award
I know many of you have had your disagreements with Hugh Hewitt, but he remains
one of the most intelligent talkers in the New Media. This Friday he had a great
interview with Andrew McBride who served for 10 years as a Federal prosecutor
and is currently at Wiley, Rein & Fielding.
The entire transcript is here
so I will only summarize the highlights:
- Why didn't Rove get indicted?
McBride notes that if you make false statements to a Grand Jury and then proactively
go to the same jury and correct those statements, you avoid potential perjury
charges. He thinks that's exactly what Rove did in his voluntary fourth appearance
to clean up previous statements about Matthew Cooper to the Grand Jury before
it disbanded. - Was any crime committed in outing Valerie Plame?
McBride doesn't think there's enough evidence to show intent and it is unlikely
that anybody will be charged with this. - How much trouble is Libby in?
McBride feels that Reggie Walton is a "hanging judge" and it is
likely that Libby will be found guilty. He also reviewed sentencing guidelines
and Libby will be looking at 15 to 21 months. After the interview, Hugh said
he thinks Libby will get a year house arrest and some probation time since
this is a first offence.
Hugh Hewitt consistently has some of the best guests on who actually know what
they're talking about. The McBride interview is the best example of this and
I encourage everybody to read the transcript.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:30pm on Oct. 23, 2005 Hollywood plays the victim again
By EagleWatcher
If you want to understand why the Hollywood left hates Republicans so much
just look at the hype surrounding George Clooney's Good Night, And Good
Luck. The feud began decades ago in the days of Republican senator Joe
McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The Hollywood
left saw McCarthy as a red-baiting zealot who conducted witch hunts looking
for Communists in the government, labor unions and Hollywood. A number of actors
and directors were hauled in front of the committee and asked if they had ever
been members of the Communist Party. It wasn't against the law to be affiliated
with the Communist Party in America, but the fear at the time was that some
would feel more allegiance to Stalin's cause and be willing to engage in espionage
on his behalf. In point of fact, the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg highlighted
the fact that some of the concern was well founded. At the time leftists from
around the world, like author/ philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, came to the defense
of the Rosenbergs, but evidence that came to light after the fall of the Soviet
Union shows that the Rosenbergs were indeed spies.
Naming names
Some of those questioned by HUAC were stoic while some named names. Elia Kazan
identified several people including Lee Strasburg and Lillian Hellman. Other
actors like Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson felt that they had been duped
by the American Communist Party into sympathizing with their cause. Edward G.
Robertson famously wrote, “the Reds made a sucker out of me.” As
a result of the hearings, Hollywood moguls fearful that they would be dragged
in front of HUAC developed an unofficial "blacklist" of actors, writers
and directors who had questionable connections to the American Communist Party.
Not know for great courage, studio bosses avoided hiring people on the list.
There is no question that some careers were ruined and some careers were put
on hold, but most of Hollywood just carried on as usual. The Hollywood left
was very reluctant to forgive people like Elia Kazan, but most them finally
did. The Hollywood left has never forgiven the Republican party.
The critics are buzzing
Clooney's film reopens the wound in a new context. There's a palpable subtext
to the film that has some liberal movie critics levitating in their seats with
ecstasy. Here are some quotes from one of my favorite movie web sites Rotten
Tomatoes.
"George Clooney's film about the CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow is a passionate,
thoughtful essay on power, truth-telling and responsibility."
-- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES"Masterfully crafted, wonderfully acted, and an undeniably cutting commentary
on fear in the 50s that resonates even louder today."
-- John Venable, SUPERCALA.COM"I found it to be one of most intelligent and insightful movies ever
made about the television news business and about the profoundly un-American
practice of labeling dissenters as traitors."
-- Richard Roeper, EBERT & ROEPER
In case you didn't pick up the vibe, let me spell it out. The Hollywood Left
and all truth loving people are facing a new McCarthyism in the person of George
W. Bush and Dan Rather was a victim of it. The fear of terrorism is akin to
the "Red Scare" of the McCarthy era. Those who speak out against the
war on terror, like Clooney, are in serious danger of being "targeted"
(blacklisted?).
Old wounds
The wound is an old one and Hollywood is always willing to let bleed a little
now and then. There's long list of movies that contain stabs at conservatives
and the McCarthy years. One of the best examples of Hollywood at its preachy
best is The Contender. This 2000 release is a movie about the first
woman vice president and her struggle against Machiavellian Republicans. The
film portrays liberals as innocent victims of evil conservatives. Conservatives
are caricatured as sexist and racist while liberals are played as enlightened
progressives who offer the only real hope for America. In an effort to be thorough,
there are swipes at Christians as well, calling them naive people who believe
in fairy tales. If you manage to make it through a week without being outraged
by a liberal, you should rent this movie just to keep in practice. As a conservative,
you'll be offended so often in the course of the film you and your friends might
consider making it into a drinking game. Sadly, great performances by actors
like Gary Oldman, who is a conservative in real life, are lost in this naked
exercise in left-wing self-pity.
Suppression?
It is pathetic for the Left to cry McCarthyism when Good Night, And Good
Luck is currently playing in theaters. There are no storm troopers hauling
moviegoers off to re-adjustment camps or torture rooms. Their whining is disingenuous
considering the blitz of books, movies and news articles accusing George Bush
of everything from cowardice to genocide before the 2004 elections. To my knowledge
none of these people has suffered any ill affect except for bad book sales from
their own badly written propaganda screeds.
Free speech endures in America.
Hollywood is free to promulgate its world view and we are free to criticize
it. But for Hollywood, any form of criticism infringes on freedom of expression
and they instantly claim victim status. Personally, I think Hollywood should
stick by its left-wing principals no matter how bad the box office gets.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »
